The Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument will be expanded to more
than 1.5m square kilometres – that’s as big as France, Spain and
Germany combined.
If this story sounds familiar that’s because it is.
Last year, the UK created the previous world’s largest continuous marine reserve around the Pitcairn Islands, and it set up another huge protected area around Ascension Island
in January 2016.
Chile, France and New Zealand have all made similar
moves in the past few years, turning the waters surrounding their most
remote island territories (such as Easter Island) into huge nature reserves.
Supporters say these marine protected areas, known as MPAs, have a
key role to play in marine conservation as they protect from fishing,
mining, drilling or other human activities, and allow habitats and
species to be restored.
Yet these protections might be undermining the very aims of global
marine conservation targets.
As we argue in a viewpoint published in the
journal Marine Policy,
it’s not enough to simply cover the remotest parts of our oceans in
notional “protection” – we need to focus on seas closer to shore, where
most of the fishing and drilling actually happens.

Tracking marine protection declarations globally. April 2016.

Boom in massive reserves

Under the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by almost
every country in the world, one of the agreed targets is to designate 10% of the area of the world’s oceans as MPA by 2020.
We are a long way from this, however, with less than 4% of the global marine area currently protected.
Even this is largely thanks to vast remote MPAs in distant seas that
are subject to few human pressures.
While there are more than 6,000 MPAs
in total, the majority (62%) of the global coverage is down to just 24
huge areas.

Simple version of global MPA map. April 2016. Disclaimer: Not all MPAs provide the same level of effective protection.

Recent proposals to increase the MPA target to 30% of the world’s seas, to be discussed at the World Conservation Congress beginning on September 1, can arguably only be met through an increasing focus on the designation of vast remote MPAs.
From the perspective of national governments, Hawaii, Ascension and
similar protected areas are an easy win.
Leaders gain some green
credentials while making progress towards their country’s individual MPA
target, and all for minimal political cost.
After all, these vast
protected areas tend to be in overseas territories without much commercial use.
Given this easy option is available, why go through the politically and
economically expensive process of creating smaller protected areas
closer to the mainland?
However, as we discuss in our paper,
there are concerns that marine conservation aims could be undermined by
this focus on a few big areas.
The marine biodiversity target is about
much more than the proportion of the seas that are covered.
It also states, for instance, that the networks of MPAs must be effective,
meaning restrictions on fishing, mining and so on are actually
enforced.
But how do you properly police a patch of ocean almost as big
as the state of Alaska? The very vastness and isolation of these
protected zones around Pacific or Atlantic islands means they are
extremely expensive to patrol.
True, emerging satellite technology
can provide remote surveillance of fishing vessels.
But gaining
sufficient evidence for prosecutions and stiff penalties remains a
challenge, despite a recent agreement between governments to detain illegal fishing vessels and block their access to markets.
The biodiversity target also specifies that the MPA networks must be
representative, in that they should protect typical examples of habitats
and species in each of the world’s 232 ecoregions,
and well connected, in that ecological processes such as fish
migrations and larval dispersal should be able to bridge the gaps
between protected areas.
These elements of the targets can arguably only be met through a more
even spread of protected areas, including smaller designations in more
intensively used “metropolitan seas” closer to towns and cities.
Often,
this will include zones where some fishing and extraction is allowed.
In
the Isla Natividad MPA in Baja California, sustainable levels of
abalone (sea snail) fishing is allowed while certain “no-take zones”
restore the marine ecosystem.
Similarly, the Tubbataha MPA in the
Philippines provides for both the restoration of coral reefs and
sustainable dive tourism.
In both these MPAs, fishermen can benefit when fish and their larvae
swim or drift out from these restored areas into fished areas.
Marine
reserves in busier waters are more challenging, but recent studies indicate their effectiveness is feasible.
Last, but certainly not least, MPA networks must be equitably
managed, and it’s not clear whether these huge areas fit the bill.
Closing the entirety of the seas around remote islands could unfairly
impact the few local people who rely on the sea for food and income.
An over-reliance on vast remote protected areas could undermine other
elements of the 10% MPA target such as their requirements to be
effective, representative, connected and equitable.
We’ll need lots of
different types of marine protection in order to actually achieve these
conservation aims.
The race towards vast remote MPAs should not divert
attention, resources and political will away from the need for smaller
protected areas closer to home.